birth or status but rather prosecuted on probable cause for an offence he had committed according to existing laws. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the allegation lacks merits and should be dismissed. *** 103. The Court notes that the burden of proof for a human rights violation lies with the Applicant. In the instant matter, the Court observes that the Applicant does not make specific submissions or provides evidence that he was discriminated against in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.33 104. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there is no basis to find a violation and therefore holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to non-discrimination protected under Article 2 of the Charter. C. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law 105. The Applicant alleges that the conduct of the courts in the Respondent State violated his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Charter, which provides for the right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law. * 106. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s claims and submits that it did not violate the Applicant’s rights provided in the Charter. Furthermore, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant never raised the issue of being discriminated in the trial court or even in his appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State further contends that the Applicant does not state in his Application how he was discriminated against and by whom. 33 Sijaona Chacha Machera v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 035/2017 Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits), § 82. Yassin Rashid Maige v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 018/2017 Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations) § 124. 24